Davis and Chakrabarti slam "internment" suggestion

Shadow Home Secretary David Davis has joined Liberty's Shami Chakrabarti in condemning a police chief's call for  "as long as it takes" detention of terror suspects.  The head of the Association of Police Chief Officers Ken Jones told The Observer the head of the Association of Police Chief Officers:

"We are now arguing for judicially supervised detention for as long as it takes. We are up against the buffers on the 28-day limit. We understand people will be concerned and nervous, but we need to create a system with sufficient judicial checks and balances which holds people, but no longer than a day [more than] necessary.  We need to go there [unlimited detention] and I think that politicians of all parties and the public have great faith in the judiciary to make sure that's used in the most proportionate way possible."

Ms Chakrabarti said that Jones was campaigning for internment.  Mr Davis was also vigorous in his opposition to the ACPO intervention:

“All the evidence shows that when the police tried to claim the need for 90 day detention without charge they were wrong and parliament’s decision on 28 days was right.  If 90 days was wrong, indefinite detention is even more wrong.  The argument that this should be under judicial supervision is facile in the extreme. The current 28 day limit is already under judicial supervision.  What is more, since the 28 day limit was introduced neither the police or security services have produced one shred of evidence to demonstrate the need for extension, either in public or in confidential briefings.”

Matthew d'Ancona is unwilling to attack Ken Jones' intervention.  Over at The Spectator blog he writes:

"It is clear beyond doubt that many modern terrorist cases involve forensic problems of unprecedented complexity - codes, languages, international connections - and that the police will increasingly require longer than they used to in order to sift through the evidence. It will not always be possible to charge a detainee. So why not make it possible for the police to continue detention indefinitely, but only if they can persuade a judge that it is necessary to ensure public safety?"

Gordon Brown will have the backing of the bulk of his parliamentary party if he chooses to legislate for a longer period of detention without trial.  Most Tory MPs do not see the need for any change.

Comments

[TomTom]

Christopher Booker in today's Telegraph has an interesting article relevant to this proposal by ACPO.....suppose you spend 90 days doing crosswords in prison on remand unable to pay your mortgage or credit cards....and you are acquitted.....Compensation ? Oh no. Not in Britain

By Christopher Booker, Sunday Telegraph
Last Updated: 1:18am BST 15/07/2007

Judges rule out recompense for the innocent

A recent decision of the High Court has blown a gaping new hole in our criminal justice system. If government officials wrongfully arrest you for a crime you didn't commit, then imprison you in hellish conditions for two years, you no longer have any right of redress.

If you are found guilty of a crime but the verdict is then reversed, you can still claim compensation. But, thanks to a ministerial diktat just upheld by the courts, if you are wholly innocent and eventually acquitted you now have no legal remedy, even if you have spent years in jail with your livelihood destroyed into the bargain.
advertisement
Telegraph - Menswear/Shoes

Few stories in this column over the years have been more shocking than that which I reported in April 2005 about Ian Thornhill, a former senior policeman who ran an import-export business in South Wales. In 2003 Mr Thornhill became the victim of an astonishing series of blunders by HM Customs and Excise, when they were tipped off that a container-load of assorted goods being imported into Southampton included a large quantity of cocaine. Also in the container was a consignment of nuts being imported by Mr Thornhill, whose brother Stuart had been acting quite independently as a forwarding agent for the container.

When Customs officials arrested a lorry driver who had been sent to pick up the cocaine, worth £60 million, their largest-ever haul, they also arrested the two brothers, although there was no shred of evidence to indicate that they had been involved. (The cocaine had been smuggled into the container en route.)

This led to a scarcely believable nightmare for the two men which was to last for nearly two years. They were held as Class A prisoners in a succession of top-security prisons, next to mass-murderers and terrorists. Stuart's health collapsed. Three times they were put on trial, in different cities, at one point being driven 100 miles a day to the court and back for several weeks, strapped down and deprived of food in freezing prison vans.

Twice a retrial had to be ordered because the Crown made such a hash of the prosecution (Customs and Excise in effect had no case), until eventually in March 2005, when the two men had been put through this hell for 22 months, a jury unanimously found them not guilty.

When Ian Thornhill returned home to his wife, whose personal bank account had also been frozen, his business was gone. He had nothing to sell but his premises.

As advised by lawyers, he did, however, have one hope. In such a case of flagrant injustice, the home secretary had a discretionary power to order an ex gratia sum in compensation. But in April 2006, when Mr Thornhill was preparing to apply for such a payment, the then home secretary, Charles Clarke, decided to scrap the scheme.

A group action to have his edict declared unlawful was brought by a number of leading London law firms, but last month two judges, May and Gray, found that Clarke was acting within his powers. When their judgment was reported last week, it came as a body blow to Mr Thornhill.

Under the 1988 Criminal Justice Act, anyone found guilty and then acquitted can still claim compensation. But Ian and Stuart Thornhill no longer have any right to redress, for what must be as glaring an act of injustice as any ever perpetrated by the officials of our increasingly all-powerful state.

[voreas06]

I am suspicious of the motives and timing of this. Labour's not so hidden agenda is to get Britain's criminal justice system in line with the rest of Europe. One of the areas that the terrorist threat conveniently allows to change is detention without trial ala france etc. The police clearly want as much time as possible despite the fact that they already have the ability to charge suspects who for example refuse to decrypt their data.
I suspect we will see Brown come out and support what the police want, or craftily push for 90 days as a "compromise" instead of unlimited detention.
The public depressingly have the opinion of lock em up and throw away the key as it is a nice easy solution, the problem is it is counter-productive. All it will do is create even more resentment and act as a recruiting sergeant, just look at Guantanamo.
We need to carry on arguing the case. Labour will continue to play the populist easy solution as it suits their european goals wonderfully (despite all the spin Brown as much as any of them) that creates a hard task for us but if we can just get across that it is counter productive and may like northern ireland extend the whole thing by a generation we might just suceed.
To be honest I am a little pessimistic after todays poll, getting over a complex message like it will be counter-productive seems beyond the intelligence of the average Brit, they seem to have fallen hook line and sinker for Brown's new new labour and will believe almost anything if it is simple.

[malcolm]

Ken Jones was unwilling today to put himself up for interview by the media to argue his case. I thought that was pathetic.

[TomTom]

I think Conservatives should push for unlimited compensation in cases where someone is detained >28 days and subsequently acquitted.......

[Dan Byles]

There's an interesting paper on this subject on the Conservative Liberty Forum website:
http://www.conservativeliberty.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=73&Itemid=31

[Umbrella man]

I'm with MdA on this. The British people want to feel secure and are going to side with the police and government in any dispute with Davis and Liberty. Whatever happened to the party of Thatcher and the Prevention of Terrorism Act? We've all gone wobbly as the great lady might have said.

[John Leonard]

David Davis is absolutely right to fight this.

Memories are short. Ken Stevens & ACPO seem to forget Bobby Sands and the H-Block hunger strikers. People forget the way that this undermined the British Government. People forget how it increased support and funding for the IRA in the USA.

What will the Police do when the first internee starts a peaceful protest?

How will they deal with a hunger strike?

What happens when the first internee is force fed?

What happens when the first internee commit suicide or dies as a result of peaceful protest?

What happens if a British Citizen dies in custody as a result of peaceful?

How will the government avoid creating martyrs to the terrorist cause?

How will it be viewed by Muslims Communities here and in other countries?

How will the public as a whole react?
It was not received well 25 years ago and this country was far less liberal then.

How will it be viewed by our allies, especially when the USA is recognising what a mistake Guantanamo was?

Can the Government ensure that those who operate the ‘internment camps’ are safe and do not become targets for terrorists? Those at the Maze were targeted and could not always be protected.

The following report outlines the type of protests that were carried out at Gitmo:

Gitmo Hunger Strike Report

Any such internment will provide the terrorists with an enormous propaganda coup encouraging more to join the terrorist cause. It allows them additional ways in which they can undermine and terrorise our society and further destroy our reputation in the international community.

Open ended internment would be a dreadful mistake.

[Ken Stevens]

John Leonard | July 15, 20:57
"Ken Stevens & ACPO seem to forget Bobby Sands and the H-Block hunger strikers"

Presumably there is another, somewhat more prestigious Ken Stevens around? I've never offered a comment on this topic, as it's not something I'd regard as within my limited competence.
Thought I'd mention, just in case!.

[John Leonard]

Ken Stevens:

I don't know where I got that from. It should say Ken Jones.

Apologies for any confusion!

[Ken Stevens]

Yippeeeee
My 15 seconds of Warholian fame!!!!!

[Tory T]

This is good stuff by David Davis who has been an outstanding Home Office presence.

We are a liberty-loving party - we share with the LibDems a horror at Labour chipping away at our rights.

David Davis is battling for our civil liberties. If Labour wants to stop terror they need to control the borders, not remove rights from our citizens who have not been convicted.

[Cardinal Pirelli]

Good stuff from Davis, I've been impressed by him since the leadership election (I wish I could say the same for Fox, although he seems to be trying to up his game recently).

[Dontmakemelaugh]

"This is good stuff by David Davis who has been an outstanding Home Office presence".

When the next bombing takes place the public will bear in mind that the Tories obstructed police in granting longer detention periods in order to investigate suspect terrorists. The Tories name will be mud (Brown will make certain that it is). David Davis will be seen as an outstanding appeaser. Another Tory exercise in shooting their toes off.

[Richard Carey]

David Davis will be seen as an outstanding appeaser.

I can't wait to see how they're going to try and make that one stick... I know their spin operation is good, but that would be a pretty difficult label to hang on DD!

We've repeatedly said that we will be willing to look again at the detention of suspects, if concrete documented evidence is brought forward by ministers and the security services that makes the case for it. We want to see strong security, bu there are other methods that the Government is repeatedly dragging its heels on - such as the validity of intercept evidence and more relevantly the ability of the police to question suspects after charging them.

It's very easy to shout "soft on terror" at your political opponents, but very difficult to find a balance between vital security measures and not doing the work of the terrorists for them by eroding the liberties that they so hate. I would ask you to consider that, and which side then is acting like the responsible (alternative) government in this debate before labelling a very able Shadow Home Secretary.

[voreas06]

Dontmakemelaugh "When the next bombing takes place the public will bear in mind that the Tories obstructed police in granting longer detention periods in order to investigate suspect terrorists. The Tories name will be mud (Brown will make certain that it is). David Davis will be seen as an outstanding appeaser. Another Tory exercise in shooting their toes off."

Actually I think you are right Dontmakemelaugh. You sound like a dangerously irrational individual to me and therefore I am going to get on the phone to the police right now and see if I can get you locked up indefinately just in case.

[James]

We should be arguing for no appeasement of terror: no compromises of our common law liberty and no compromises of our borders. This would combine robust defence for civil liberties against the threat of encrouching Europeanisation and government authoritarianism (hat-tip voreas06), with tough love. If you don't like Britain, then get the hell out - either because we deport you to the sharia dive your so boisterously in favour of, or because we start to use common sense and discretion on deciding who should be let into the country - ie, not those whose idea of a holiday is two weeks in a Pakistani madrassa.

The present government and opposition would however run a million miles from any such plan; the former because they're ignorent of our historical liberty and covertly/overtly opposed to national independence, and the latter because they turn white (or more appropriately for project Cameron, green) at the thought of being seen as "racist". So don't hold your breathe.

[Matt Wright]

I can see dangers here if we don't get the policy right. Terrorism is likely to ratchet up for a while. I'm not suire what the final proposals will be from the Govt or us and I suspect the public don't understand, but do want tough action. My feeling is that detention periods could be extended so long as it was under regular review by a judge. The policy should also be subject to annual voting from parliament on whether the extended detention law is working and whether it should retained at all in the light of the state of terrorism. Also the way the judge reviewed the internment could be framed to enable checks and balances if the Police are making no progress. I think we need to think carefully about all this,

Matt

[Umbrella man]

Some sense at last from someone; thank you Matt!

[Dontmakemelaugh]

Actually I think you are right "Dontmakemelaugh. You sound like a dangerously irrational individual to me and therefore I am going to get on the phone to the police right now and see if I can get you locked up indefinately just in case".

Posted by: voreas06 | July 15, 2007 at 22:49

Voreas 06: You are not quite right. I was once a "dangerous irrational individual" (I once voted for John Major - once was enough), but I have learnt a lesson and regard the Tories with much scepticism and I am not yet convinced by the politicing of Dave Boy.
The police did arrive after your phone call, but they left after being in complete agreement with me - I think they are on their way round to see you, could be something to do with wasting police time (plead insanity, it will be accepted).

[voreas06]

Umbrella man "Some sense at last from someone; thank you Matt!"

I disagree, in purely politics terms it would be a short term political gain So politically it may be "sense" but in terms of the effects it would have I think you should listen to Patrick Mercer and David Davis. The Conservative Policies of Border Police, allow intercept evidence in court and question after charge are effective, have no chance of being counter-productive and do not infringe our hard fought liberties in the way ID cards and unlimited detention do.
Combine Conservative policies with a cooling of the rhetoric and an increased funding in Security services and police and the chancers are we start to reduce the risks from foreign islamists and more importantly reduce the chances of British born muslims turning to extremism.
Unlimited detention will act to increase those risks.

[voreas06]

Dontmakemelaugh
"The police did arrive after your phone call, but they left after being in complete agreement with me - I think they are on their way round to see you, could be something to do with wasting police time (plead insanity, it will be accepted)."

I suppose it was inevitable the police would agree with you but that doesn't make the policy right. I believe you should go and think on the effects of unlimited detention. Anyway I am off to bed and if the fuzz turn up I shall tell them to think it through very carefully before they commit our country to 25 years of unnecessary authoritarianism.

[Matt Wright]

Its a question of definition. Its not unlimited detention if its being regularly reveiwed according to a clear framework and process. I agree with your other points but that doesn't mean we should not consider means by which the Police can gain more time if their investigations are beginning to shed light. This isn't an either/or really and I agree with tighter border control and I don't support ID cards and I also feel we would be unwise to raise the rhetoric or have measures that divide communities.

Matt

Matt

[TomTom]

When the next bombing takes place the public will bear in mind that the Tories obstructed police in granting longer detention periods in order to investigate suspect terrorists.

So you think the police know who is going to carry out bombings ? They did not do anything to Abu Hamza except provide him with police protection outside Finsbury Park Mosque until the Americans wanted him extraditing - and then - rather than treat him like a NatWest banker - the CPS rushed to protect him from the American extradition proceedings.

The evidence suggests men like Abu Hamza have been the radicalising force on those who plant bombs - yet the British Government has failed to a) control borders b) control visas for unqualified imams c) remove extremists identified by Muslim communities as troublesome

Maybe Stella Rimington was right in her interview - that they aim to build a Stasi rather than control terrorism by border controls

Intelligence has not stopped many bombings - most tips have come from Pakistan or from the FBI - rather than from deep penetration of terrorist cells.

What evidence do the police have that they have ever held a suspect to 28 days, released him through lack of evidence, only to have him engage in bombing ?

[activist]

I really don't think I want to live in this country anymore. The more I read the worse it gets.

[Observer]

I really don't think I want to live in this country anymore. The more I read the worse it gets.

Posted by: activist | July 16, 2007 at 08:13

I sympathise. You know why it is so ? Because the politicians know they lack legitimacy, that they do not represent anyone but themselves and their sponsors.

They have an abject fear of being exposed by the majority as frauds and so desperately try to keep control of the mass of the population for fear of them escaping or overturning the unrepresentative cliques that run the political machines.

[Dontmakemelaugh]

What evidence do the police have that they have ever held a suspect to 28 days, released him through lack of evidence, only to have him engage in bombing ?

Posted by: TomTom | July 16, 2007 at 07:09

The evidence is that the police have asked for the extension to detain if necessary. I am quite happy to accept their request.
Police will at regular intervals have attend court to justify the detention of the suspect who will be legally represented.
It seems to me that the Tories are objecting merely on the grounds that the proposal is backed by Labour and for no other logical reason.
To quote a minister I have just heard on the news: "I do not believe that a suspect terrorist should be held for one day longer than is necessary to prove his innocence. I do believe that a terrorist suspect being investigated should not be released until proven to be innocent" - (or words to that effect).

Some are trying to muddy nthe waters by

[Dontmakemelaugh]

Should read: Some are trying to muddy the waters by stating it is permanent internment.
You will be able to hear your hardman, ex SAS (one year - good PR) at 11 am on Talk Sport radio defending his master.
At present the poll is 96% in favour of longer detention if necessary.

[malcolm]

No don'tmakemelaugh,Tomtoms question is very valid. The last time this came out the police were unable to provide a single example of a potential terrorist being released because of lack of time to charge them. As Ken Jones refused to be interviewed yesterday I assume the situation today is the same.
I'm sure if they could everyone would be in favour of longer detention.
David Davis is, in my opinion, 100% right.
Remember we have to try and win hearts and minds as well as improving security.

[Dontmakemelaugh]

"Remember we have to try and win hearts and minds as well as improving security".

You have also to win the hearts and minds of the majority if the Tories wish to gain power.

If the police do not believe or need extended time limits then why are they asking? Why gamble? Should the police ever blame the early release of a suspect subsequently invovled in,terrorism Labour will make sure that much blame will be heaped on the Tories.

[Curly]

I often worry that we don't make good use of many existing laws to keep people in custody, most terrorists commit a number of crimes in the pre-commissioning of their work, a number of which can carry jail sentences of a sufficient length to ensure that police can fully investigate the larger case before bringing new charges.

I would be very cautious of this rather draconian move which might make Britain the Guantanamo of Europe and invite further reprisals from those who wish to alter our way of life.

[George Hinton]

What Ken Jones is asking for, is in effect Corpus Juris, the primacy of the state over the individual. I am somewhat unnerved, that a civil servant, is demanding powers that only a totalitarian state would have and use.

In saying that, i am of the view, that anybody engaged in acts of terrorism should be banged up for a very long time. Indeed, if deaths arise i would expect our government to bring back the death penalty and use it. Similarly those suspected of terrorism should be banged up. But here, the burden of proof, the level of involvement, all need to be very carefully analysed and addressed.
We cannot go around placing people in confinement just on suspicion, or because they know someone who is a terrorist, or have spoken to such a person, or went to school with him/her.
I have every sympathy with Ken Jones's request, but we must be very careful. Using despotic powers will only recoil upon us if they are mis-used or abused. The chances of either are quite high, given the incompetence and ineffectual policing we see these days. The danger is, the police will use such powers, wrongly, much in the way that Section 44 has been abused over the last few years.
We must stand up, as a party of liberty and liberalism and freedom and democracy, against the fascist tendencies of those that rule and govern and police us.

[Dontmakemelaugh]

"We must stand up, as a party of liberty and liberalism and freedom and democracy, against the fascist tendencies of those that rule and govern and police us".

Posted by: George Hinton | July 16, 2007 at 12:33

Well, George, should the unthinkable happen and a series of ghastly bombings take place (it is said we face this situation for the next 15 years), it is to be hoped that the relatives of the families stricken with grief will remember your noble, dispassionate, grand sentiments in the pursuit of "liberalism, freedom and democracy". Somehow I don't think they will be impressed.

It should be remembered (unless they have changed the law) that police are obliged to charge a suspect as soon as they have evidence to substantiate a charge and that, at this moment in time, once charged police cannot question the suspect further in relation to that charge. If that situation is changed then (speaking as a fascist, George) police may require more time.

[George Hinton]

Let me not be taken for a wobbly Liberal, Dontmakemelaugh | July 16, 2007 at 12:53,
I can be as fascist as the next when it comes to Defence of the Realm.
I make my comments knowing that they come from an officer, of an organisation, that is no more than a political mouthpiece, that brought us the ayatollah of motoring, Richard Brunsdom and his ridiculous harassment of drivers.
Frankly, I'd have anyone suspected of terrorist involvment banged up, post haste, and the keys thrown away. In addition i would like the death penalty brought back for terrorist offences where death has occured. But, we know that that sort of power, will be abused by the police and all will be subject to arbitrary arrest and detention, on the slightest whim, of some bureaucrat with an axe to grind.
When our protectors start demanding draconian powers to arrest, imprison and interrogate us we should take care. I suspect that we need a minor change in present laws, to remove the impediment of not being able to question a suspect once charged, and to do so without the presence of a solicitor. Some of whom, it is alleged, have conspired to pervert due process, but that's another story isn't it!!

[Dontmakemelaugh]

Let me not be taken for a wobbly Liberal, Dontmakemelaugh | July 16, 2007

Please to know it George. You are more of a fascist than I am even if you are somewhat, imho, confused
However, I do not recognize your allegation that the police are asking for draconian powers. Do you mean that organisation which has more than its share of chief constables towing the PC line; believing in positive discrimination; and sexual realignment; sometimes don't turn up at the scene of a buglary and who haven't deported any terrorists suspects despite the promises of Blair? Oh, you mean that fascist bunch that have to be shamed into arresting people carrying placards threatening death and distruction; that under Goverment policy have given London the nickname, Londonistan and the worlds softest touch?
I am with you on capital punishment, George, but do you know what? The majority of those fascist chief constables are against it (I think they have had to be otherwise they wouldn't get promoted).
Fascist police? About as fascists as the political correct BBC.

[John Waine]

While concerned about some of the more extreme views expressed in this thread, I find Dontmakemelaugh's touching faith in the police even more worrying! (By "police", I really mean the CPOs and other senior officers who have done so much to undermine the police service and the public's perception of it, not those officers who actually do the dirty work on the front line - when they're not bogged down in red tape).
As for worrying about whether the public will understand our opposition to any further extension of detention without charge, I make 2 points:

1 isn't it a bit patronising to suggest that the ordinary voter isn't capable of understanding?

2 it's the Tories' duty to EXPLAIN exactly why habeus corpus and other established principles of our common law are so important and to CONVINCE the public that liberty and freedom are more important than politicians (and senior cops) seeming to be "tough on terrorism".

DD is absolutely right and deserves our (and DC's) full support in espousing proper Conservative values.

[Dontmakemelaugh]

1 isn't it a bit patronising to suggest that the ordinary voter isn't capable of understanding?

2 it's the Tories' duty to EXPLAIN exactly why habeus corpus and other established principles of our common law are so important and to CONVINCE the public that liberty and freedom are more important than politicians (and senior cops) seeming to be "tough on terrorism".
John Waine

Then you had better explain it to the 96% in favour of having the power of detention extended (and try not to be patronising whilst you are doing it).
The 96% in favour was the last percentage I heard on Talk Sport Radio. I believe it was on Monday morning. At 11 am your hero David Davis was on the same programme being (imho) patronising.